Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

In summary:
        Level3 is crying foul while their CDN competitors have quietly bought
into Comcast's racket.

        I applaud Level3 for calling attention to this matter.

Owen
(Speaking strictly for myself)

On Nov 29, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Ren Provo wrote:

> http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc2 () dcrocker net> wrote:
>
> > On 11/29/2010 2:40 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote:
> >
> > > Essentially, the question is who has to pay for the infrastructure to
> > > support
> > > the bandwidth requirements of all of these new and booming streaming
> > > ventures. I can understand both the side taken by Comcast, and the side of
> > > the content provider, but I don't think it's as simple as the slogans
> > > spewed
> > > out regarding "Net Neutrality", which has become so misused and abused as
> > > a
> > > term that I don't think it has any credulous value remaining.
> >
> >
> > I find it helpful to distinguish "participant neutrality" from "service
> > neutrality".  The first says that you and I pay the same rate.  The second
> > says the my email costs the same as my voip.
> >
> > As described, it appears that Level3 is being singled out, which makes for
> > participant non-neutrality.  On the other hand, if Comcast were charging
> > itself for xfinity traffic, this might qualify as service non-neutrality
> > (assuming there is a plausible meaning to "charging itself"...
> >
> > d/
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dave Crocker
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking
> > bbiw.net